"The Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending Internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law," wrote attorney Evan Stone of Denton, Texas, saying that his opponents were delaying things so much that he had no choice but to dismiss the suit.

When file-sharing attorneys file lawsuits against anonymous defendants, they initially face no opposition—their targets are unknown, so no lawyers speak up for their interests until after the subpoenas have been filed and their names are revealed. The EFF and Public Citizen are out to change that, as they did in the Gute Onkel case. The two groups asked the judge to appoint them as attorneys ad litem to speak up for the 670 unknown defendants—and the court agreed.

A few weeks later, Stone asked the court to dismiss the case, and he had harsh words for the other attorneys.

The Court appointed attorneys ad litem for the Defense. Rather than choosing competent local counsel experienced in intellectual property law, the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending Internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law. Additionally, instead of instructing these attorneys to engage Plaintiff’s counsel in a discovery conference which would allow the case to move forward, the Court ordered attorneys for the Defense to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion, for which the Court has yet to make a ruling. The response of the Defense was largely beyond the scope of the Discovery Motion at issue, raising defenses as absurd as the notion that a Defendant’s choice of what movie to illegally download from the Internet is “protected speech” under the First Amendment. Moreover, the Defense provided no alternatives for Plaintiff to cure the harm inflicted on it by Defendants. Now, four months after the initial filing of this case, with little chance of discovery in sight, Plaintiff feels it has lost any meaningful opportunity to pursue justice in this matter. As such, Plaintiff has notified all relevant Internet service providers that this case is being dismissed and hereby notifies the Court of the same.

The move pleased the EFF.

"Copyright owners have a right to protect their works, but they can't use shoddy and unfair tactics to do so," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "When adult film companies launch these cases, there is the added pressure of embarrassment associated with pornography, which can convince those ensnared in the suits to quickly pay what's demanded of them, whether or not they have legitimate defenses. That's why it's so important to make sure the process is fair."

Stone has brought many such cases in Texas, all on behalf of pornographers. The goal is generally small settlements from those accused of sharing porn, not lengthy court cases. As Stone told the Dallas Observer last September, "Almost everybody that has replied to my letters has replied, 'Hey you caught me, I'm ready to comply. We've had several defendants settle or begin making payments."

But if Stone was hoping to grab quick subpoenas and blast out settlement letters, the EFF and Public Citizen look set to make that as difficult as possible for him.

Update: Paul Levy of Public Citizen got in touch to note that neither he nor the EFF asked to be appointed attorneys in this case. "What is so very unusual about this case is that it was the judge who reached out to us," he said.